VYAPAM Scam Madhya Pradesh

SYNOPSIS & LIST OF DATES
The Petitioner is a Member of Parliament from Rajya Sabha
and has beenChief Minister of State of Madhya Pradesh for 10
years. Being a public figure, the Petitioner has been serving the
people of this country for the last forty years. As a man of
impeccable integrity, the Petitioner is being subjected to
humiliation as being an accomplice to someone who had
allegedly “fabricated and forged evidence”in VYAPAM cases to
mislead the investigation.
The Petitioner prefers the present Writ Petition in order to
protecthis fundamental rights as the reputation of the Petitioner
in the society, which the Petitioner has earned with integrity and
service to the State of Madhya Pradesh, for last 40 years has
been tarnished by the allegations that the Petitioner herein had
“fabricated and forged evidence in order to mislead the
investigation” in Crime No. 539/2013 lodged at Police Station,
Rajender Nagar, Indore of VYAPAM case.
The allegation finds its source from a report dated 22.04.2015
of Special Investigation Team (SIT) regarding the material sent
by an External Whistle Blower, a computer expert to High Court

of Madhya Pradesh on directions of the Delhi High Court. The
whistleblower had produced incriminating material regarding
tampering of Evidence by Indore Police in the Excel Sheet
maintained by Nitin Mohindra (accused; principal system
analyst; VYAPAM Official) and the direct beneficiary being the
sitting Chief Minister of MP viz. Mr. Shivraj Singh Chauhan. The
whistleblower had assisted Indore police and STF in
investigation of VYAPAM cases in the capacity of a consultant.
In the original excel sheet regarding recruitment of Samvida
Shiksha Varg-II, III and AG-3, which is part of evidence and
chargesheet under Crime No. 19/2013 and Crime No. 20/2013
filed by Special Task Force (STF), “CM” featured at 48 places
as a recommedor/sponsor of candidates which was either
replaced with “Umabharatiji”, “Rajbhawan”, “M/s” and “Minister”
or altogether deleted. The excel sheet featured the name, roll
number of a candidate, the recommender and the examination
for which the candidate approached the recommender to
qualify.
The External whistleblower had approached the Petitioner
herein in December 2014/January 2015 under threat of life and
limb from high profile persons of Madhya Pradesh and police

agencies of Madhya Pradesh as the Whistleblower was privy to
very sensitive incriminating/ damaging information regarding
the involvement of Chief Minister and Chief Minister’s family in
VYAPAM scam. The Petitioner on the basis of the information
and documents provided by the Whistle blower submitted a
representation to SIT on 16.02.2015 with the original excel
sheet, but no action was taken by either SIT or STF in that
behalf.
A Report was prepared by the SIT on 22.04.2015, on basis of
the demonstration given by staff of STF (Special Task Force),
which is ill equipped and ill trained to handle the nuances of
digital forensics. The SIT in its wisdom considered it
appropriate to neither summon the whistleblower who had
provided the material nor called upon the Truth Lab, Bangalore
to demonstrate the veracity of the Evidence. The Truth Lab,
Bangalore is a renowned and reputed forensic lab of the
Country and had certified and authenticated the material
provided by the Whistleblower on whistleblower’s request.
The said report of the SIT was presented before the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in its Monitoring jurisdiction in
W.P. 6385/2014on 24.04.2015 whereby the High Court agreed

with the prima facie finding of the SIT without application of
mind and in a monitoring jurisdiction gave a prima facie finding
in the order.
It is submitted that at both forums i.e. before SIT or High Court,
the Petitioner was not present as no intimation or summon was
issued by either of the forums to explain the stand of the
Petitioner herein and the proceedings were undertaken behind
the back of the Petitioner.
Thereafter, the sitting Chief Minister, Mr. Shivraj Singh
Chauhan on 26.04.2015 held a press conference at his
residence proclaiming that the Petitioner has been lying all
along regarding the original excel sheet, that the Petitioner has
“forged evidence” and the Chief Minister has been given a
clean chit by the SIT and the High Court of M.P. at
Jabalpur vide report dated 22.04.2015 and order dated
24.04.2015. The press conference was widely reported in all
the leading newspapers of Madhya Pradesh with the statement
of Chief Minister.

This Hon’ble Court in Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry,
(1989) 1 SCC 494 at page 514 made a reference to the
following excerpt from Bhagwat Gita:
Paragraph 22.
The following words of caution uttered by the Lord to Arjun
in Bhagwad Gita with regard to dishonour or loss of reputation
may usefully be quoted:
“Akirtinchapi bhutani kathaishyanti te-a-vyayam, Sambha-
vitasya Chakirtir maranadatirichyate. (2.34)
(Men will recount thy perpetual dishonour, and to one highly
esteemed, dishonour exceedeth death.)”
Paragraph 24.
In Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 77 at p. 268 is to be found the
statement of law in the following terms:
It is stated in the definition Person, 70 C.J.S. p. 688 note 66
that legally the term “person” includes not only the physical
body and members,but also every bodily sense and personal
attribute, among which is the reputation a man has acquired.
Blackstone in his Commentaries classifies and distinguishes
those rights which are annexed to the person, jura personarum,
and acquired rights in external objects, jura rerum; and in the

former he includes personal security, which consists in a
person'slegaland uninterruptedenjoymentof his life,his limbs,
his body, his health, and his reputation. And he makes the
corresponding classification ofremedies.The idea expressed is
that a man's reputation is a part of himself, as his body and
limbs are, and reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the good
opinionof others,and it is capable ofgrowth and real existence,
as an arm or leg.Reputation is,therefore,a personal right, and
the right to reputation is put among those absolute personal
rights equal in dignity and importance to security from violence.
Accordingto ChancellorKentas a part of the rights of personal
security,the preservation of every person's goodnamefrom the
vile arts of detraction is justly included. The laws of the
ancients, no less than those of modern nations, made private
reputation one of the objects of their protection.
The right to the enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable
privilege,of ancientorigin,and necessary to human society, as
stated in Libeland SlanderSection 4, and this right is within the
constitutional guaranty of personal security as stated in
Constitutional Law Section 205, and a person may not be
deprived of this right through falsehood and violence without
liability for the injury as stated in Libel and Slander Section 4.

Detraction from a man's reputation is an injury to his
personality,and thus an injury to reputationis a personal injury,
that is, an injury to an absolute personal right.
The Petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble Court as the order of
the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur dated 24.04.2015 was
passed in its monitoring jurisdiction, the proceedings of which
are attended only by an Additional Advocate General of State of
M.P. who is present in capacity of Counsel for STF
(investigating agency) and the officers of STF. No other
Counsel, petitioner, Applicant is allowed in those proceedings.
Hence the Petitioner has no other efficacious remedy and
approaching this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 read with
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
1970-2007 The Madhya Pradesh Vyavasaik Pariksha
Mandal (hereinafter shall be referred as
‘VYAPAM’ M.P. Professional Examination Board)
was formed and entrusted with duty to conduct
ProfessionalExaminations in 1970. Subsequently
in 2007 VYAPAM was also entrusted with a duty
to conduct various examinations for

appointment/recruitments in Government
departments this included departments like
Transport, Education, Dairy, Wight and
Measures, police, excise etc.
Thus VYAPAM became a single window for
entrance in Professional Courses as well as
getting appointments in various Government
Services.
07.07.2013 An F.I.R being F.I.R No. 539 of 2013 was lodged
in Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Indore, Madhya
Pradesh against unknown persons under
Sections 419,420, 467,468 I.P.C. on a complaint
that certain students with false identity cards are
staying at a hotel to appear on behalf of other
candidates in PMT examination.
18.07.2013 As per the chargesheetfiled in Crime No.19/2013
and 20/2013 relating to recruitment examination
of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II/III, the Indore police
seized the office computer of Nitin Mohindra
(Principal Analyst VYAPAM; Accused) from

Bhopal VYAPAM office at 04.30 pm.
As per the Petitioner’s information (provided by
the whistleblower), the services of computer
experts were requisitioned by the Indore Police
as well as by the STF to assist investigation. A
renowned computer expert (the whistleblower)
who has been assisting various Government
departments in data recovery was summoned
and asked to recover the data, which was
allegedly deleted by the writer, i.e., Mr. Nitin
Mohindra before the seizure of its hard disk on
18.07.2013. The said computer expert
(whistleblower) succeeded in recovery of the
original data and saved a copy of the same
through the help of the software installed in the
Computer. However, the copies of the Excel
Sheet filed by the STF before the Hon’ble High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in FIR No.19/2013 and
20/2013 contain material alterations, deletions
and substitutions, that tantamount to tampering
with evidence, which is required to be produced
before the Court of law.

As per the original deleted excel sheet retrieved
by Indore police with help of Computer Expert
(whistleblower) on 18.07.2013, “CM” featured at
48 places as a recommendor/sponsor for
candidates appearing for Samvida Shiksha Varg-
II/III and AG-III. The said specific entries were
either replaced with others like “Umabharatiji”,
“Minister”, “Rajbhawan” and “M/s” or altogether
deleted. This information is authenticated and
certified by Truth labs, Bangalore, a private
reputed forensic lab in a detailed report. The
aforesaid tampering of evidence was done by
Indore police, direct beneficiary being the Chief
Minister of State, Mr. Shivraj Singh Chauhan.
22.07.2013 As per the chargesheet filed in Crime No.
19/2013 and 20/2013 relating to recruitment of
Samvida Shiksha Varg-II/III, the Indore police
sent the hard disk of Nitin Mohindra’s computerto
DFS Gandhinagar, Gujarat for forensic analysis.

26.08.2013 Special Task Force (STF) by notification was
entrusted with the investigation of all cases
relating to VYAPAM scam. A number of FIR’s
were lodged by STF in cases relating to illegal
admissions/ recruitment totalling 55 cases, 45
relating to admission in professional courses and
10 relating to recruitment in government services
on recommendation of high profile persons.
16.04.2014 A set of fourteen Writ Petitions were filed before
the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur, the lead
Petition being W.P. 15186/2013 titled Awadhesh
Prasad Shukla vs State of Madhya Pradesh
praying for transfer of investigation of VYAPAM
cases from STF to CBI. The Hon’ble High Court
was pleased to dispose off all the Writ Petitions
with the directionof suo moto monitoring of all the
cases of VYAPAM.
July 2014 The Petitioner herein along with other persons
filed Writ Petition No.11695/2014 before the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh praying for transfer of
Investigation to CBI in light of developments that

had taken place after the order dated 16.04.2014
on basis of the chargesheet submitted by STF in
various cases relating to VYAPAM as the
investigation conducted by STF prima facie
appeared to be flawed and to shield the principal
perpetrators and prosecute the students and their
parents.
05.11.2014 The High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur was
pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition
11695/2014 along with others by entrusting the
supervision of STF to Special Investigation Team
(SIT) comprising of Retd. High Court Judge,
Retired IPS officer and a Technical Expert. The
Court monitoring of VYAPAM Cases was to
continue in W.P. 6385/2014. Thus a second tier
of supervisionwas introduced in Court monitoring
proceedings by High Court of M.P.
28.11.2014 The Petitioner along with other persons preferred
various SLP’s against the order dated 05.11.2014
passed by this Hon’ble Court being S.L.P C.C
No. 16456 of 2014, S.L.P C.C No. 17700 of

2014, S.L.P C.C No. 17908 of 2014, S.L.P C.C
No. 31563 of 2014 were filed before this Hon’ble
Court. This Hon’ble Court vide Order dated
28.11.2014 dismissed the above mentioned
S.L.P’s on the statement made by the Ld.
Attorney General of India on behalf of State of
Madhya Pradesh. It is pertinent to note that this
Hon’ble Court enlarged the jurisdiction of SIT
constituted by Hon’ble High Court of M.P. to
supervise all the cases of STF investigation in
VYAPAM scam.
06.12.2014 The Petitioner in a representation to Special
Investigation Team, pointed out discrepancies in
the investigation conducted by STF overlooking
aspects of “larger conspiracy”, no investigation in
recruitment of Patwaris etc in cases involving
high profile persons. Unfortunately upto this date
no action has been taken by STF (Special task
Force) in this regard.
Dec 2014-
January
An External Whistle blower contacted the
Petitioner herein fearing for his life and limb as

2015 the Whistle blower possessed incriminating and
damaging information while working in capacity of
a technical consultant with investigating agencies
of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Police and STF). The
damaging information related to tampering of
evidence by investigating agencies to shield the
Chief Minister and other high profile persons of
Madhya Pradesh in VYAPAM scam cases
relating to recruitment examination of Samvida
Shiksha Varg-II,III and AG-III. The whistleblower
provided the hard copies of the material (with
material /mirror image of same) demonstrating
tampering undertaken by investigating agencies
of Madhya Pradesh to shield the Chief Minister
and other Ministers of the Madhya Pradesh
Government.
16.02.2015 The Petitioner herein on affidavit submitted a
representation before the S.I.T. (consisting of
Hon’ble Chairman – Shri Chandresh Bhushan,
Retired Judge Madhya Pradesh High Court, Shri
Vijay Raman Retired I.P.S (Member Police) and
Shri Reddy (Member Technical) constituted on

the directions of High Court of M.P. The
Petitioner herein stated on the basis of the
incriminating material provided by the External
whistleblower that the Petitioner has original
excel sheets/ materials in which “C.M.” was
mentioned at 48 places as a middlemen/
recommender of the candidates which was
substituted with “Uma Bharti Ji”, “Raj Bhavan”,
“M./s”, “Minister” and at other places all together
deleted in excel sheet retrieved from the deleted
data of Mr. Nitin Mohindra (Principal System
Analyst; VYAPAM) regarding Crime No.19-
20/2013 relating to recruitment of Samvida
Shiksha Varg-II and III. The investigating
agencies of Madhya Pradesh have tampered with
the electronic evidences and submitted false and
fabricated excel sheets in the charge sheets filed
before competent court of law.
20.02.2015 The external whistle blower (digital forensic
engineer/ computer expert) who had worked for
S.T.F Bhopal and other investigating agencies
during the course of investigation of VYAPAM

cases filed a Writ Petition No. 334/2015 under
Article 226 r/w Article 21 of the Constitution of
India before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi with
following prayers:
(i) Be pleased to Direct Respondent no. 1 (State
of NCT) to provide police protection to the
Petitioner as the life and limb of the Petitioner is
under threat from highly influential persons in
Madhya Pradesh and Police authorities of
Madhya Pradesh.
(ii) Pass an order restraining the Respondent No.
2 to 4 (Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh Police
and STF) i.e. authorities of the State of Madhya
Pradesh from illegally arresting/forcibly taking the
Petitioner away from the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.
20.02.2015 The whistle blower claimed in the petition that he
has incriminating and damaging information
regarding the involvement of Chief Minister of
Madhya Pradesh and his family members in

VYAPAM cases. The whistle blower also made a
prayer before the High Court of Delhi to submit
the original excel sheets/ material (electronic
evidence in form of soft copy) in the safe custody
of Delhi High Court. The High Court of Delhi vide
order dated 20.02.2015 passed in Writ Petition
(Crl) No. 334 of 2015 was pleased to grant him
police protection as an interim relief and directed
the police authorities of the State of Madhya
Pradesh not to remove the whistle blower from
within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High
Court except in accordance with procedure
established by law and without intimating the
Petitioner and his counsel on record in this
behalf.
23.02.2015 The Petitioner wrote to SIT on basis of the
material provided by the Whistle blower, in which
the Petitioner had submitted cell numbers of
prime accused of VYAPAM scam cases along
with IMEI numbers and landline/cell numbers of
Chief Minister, Chief Minister’s wife and other
persons from Chief Minister’s office. The call

detail records and SMS’s sent between these
numbers would have corroborated that CM’s
office, CM and CM’s wife were in direct touch for
facilitating illegal admissions/recruitment through
VYAPAM. But surprisingly the SIT neither
forwarded it to STF for investigation nor placed it
before Monitoring bench of High Court.
25.02.2015 The Petitioner wrote a letter to SIT Bhopal
VYAPAM cases along with the order of Delhi
High Court passed in W.P. (Crl.) No. 334/2105
filed by the Whistleblower, requesting for
convenient time and place for presentation by the
External Whistleblowerfor explaining the material
which incriminate the Chief Minister of Madhya
Pradesh and Chief Minister’s family as the
Whistleblower was under threat of life and limb in
Madhya Pradesh.
04.03.2015 The High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in W.P.
No. 6385/2014 (monitoring jurisdiction) was
pleased to pass an order on the grievance made
by Advocate General in context of the documents

submitted by Petitioner herein before SIT, as an
attempt to influence the SIT. The said order was
passed in absence of the Petitioner without any
notice. Further the Advocate General submitted
that what is more intriguing is that the SIT was
ready to oblige the request made in the
representations including an undertaking visit to
Delhi. The AG further submitted that the SIT is
overstepping its authority under judgment dated
05.11.2014. The High Court of M.P. (in its
monitoring jurisdiction) held that SIT could not “on
its own” unearth the information made available
to it, if it was in respect of investigation of the
crimes under monitoring. The High Court of
Madhya Pradesh further called for a report in
sealed cover by Chairman SIT about the
circumstances in which he accepted the request
to go to Delhi on 04.03.2015 and the purpose of
visit so made.
13.03.2015 The whistleblower before submitting the
incriminating material in a pen drive to the Delhi
High Court in W.P. (Crl.) No. 334/2015, sent the

material to “Truth labs” Bangalore for analysis
and veracity of the material. Truth Lab Bangalore
is a private forensic lab, credible and reputed, the
advisory board of Truth lab consists of legal
luminaries and others like :
(i) Justice M.N. Venkatachalliah.
(ii) Justice M.Jagannadha Rao.
(iii) Justice V.S. Malimath.
(iv) Mrs Ranjana Kumar, Former
Vigilance Commissioner.
(v) Dr. Palle Ram Rao, Former
Secretary, GOI.
(vi) Mr. C.S. Rao, Former Chairman
IRDA
(vii) Mr. C. Anjaneya Reddy, Retd
IPS, Former DG Vigilance
(viii) Mr. MVS Prasad, Retd IAS,
Former Special Chief Secretary,
A.P.
(ix) Mr. Kamal Kumar Retd IPS,
Former Director NPA.
(x) Mr. P.S.V. Prasad Retd IPS,
Former Director NPA.

(xi) Mr. Vepa Kamesam, Former DG,
RBI
(xii) Dr. Lalji Singh VC BHU & Former
Director CCMB
(xiii) Mr. Potturi Venkateshwara Rao,
Former Chairman , AP Press
Academy
(xiv) Prof. T.V. Rao Em.Prof IIM
Ahmedabad
(xv) Mr. Pradeep Mittal, Founder
Magna Infotech, Hyderabad
18.03.2015 The External Whistleblower submitted the report
of Truth Labs Bangalore alongwith pendrive in
W.P. (Crl) No. 334/2015 in the Custody of the
High Court of Delhi.
23.03.2015 The Petitioner sent a Complaint to SIT
(VYAPAM) for registering offences and arraying
the Chief Minister and the officials of Madhya
Pradesh Police as an accused in Crime No. 19-
20/2013 relating to recruitment Examination of
Samvida Shiksha Varg-II and III in light of

judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Lalita Kumari vs
State of U.P. & Ors alongwith the certified copyof
Truth lab report and copy of the pen drive
containing incriminating material. A clear-cut case
of tampering of evidence by investigating
agencies was made out to save the Chief
Minister of the State.
26.03.2015 The Writ Petition No. 334/2015 filed by the
External whistleblower before Delhi High Court
was disposedof on the submissions made by the
Counsels with following considerations:
(i) Counsel for STF at the outset by placing
reliance on the Counter affidavit submits
that they do not wish to interrogate the
Petitioner in the matter.
(ii) Counsel for the Petitioner in light of the
statement made at bar by the counsel
appearing on behalf of STF states that
subject to the Petitioner being provided
protection by the Police in Delhi there is

no need to proceed further with the
subject petition.
(iii) A copy of the purported material
available with the Petitioner shall be
transmitted in a sealed cover to the
Registrar General of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur within a
fortnight.
(iv) The parties shall be bound by the
respective undertakings made by their
Counsel in Court today.
04.04.2015 The Petitioner herein sent a reminder letter to SIT
Vyapam cases in reference of letter dated
23.03.2015 providing information regarding
cognizable offences committed by Indore police
to shield the Chief Minster Madhya Pradesh. The
SIT/STF has not taken any action till date on the
information provided by the Petitioner herein in
teeth of Lalita Kumari vs State of U.P. (2014) 2
SCC 1.

08.04.2015 The STF issued an information letter/summon to
Petitioner on the representation submitted to SIT
by the Petitioner dated 06.12.2014, 15.02.2015,
25.02.2015 and 23.03.2015 for a statement.
09.04.2015 A copy of the pendrive along with the certified
copy of the report of truth lab was forwarded by
the Counsel of the whistleblower in W.P.
334/2015 under directions of the High Court of
Delhi to Registrar General Madhya Pradesh High
Court.
15.04.2015 The Petitioner appeared before SIT VYAPAM
cases in Bhopal regarding the letter dated
08.04.2015 sent by STF. The Petitioner also
pointed out various representations and
Complaints sent by the Petitioner on which no
action was taken by either the SIT or the STF:
(i) Representation to SIT dated
06.12.2014: The Petitioner
pointed out discrepancies in the

investigation conducted by STF
overlooking aspects of “larger
conspiracy”, no investigation in
recruitment of Patwaris etc in
cases involving high profile
persons.
(ii) Representationdated 16.02.2015
with affidavit of the Petitioner and
a copy of the “original Excel
sheet”, Petitioner informed SIT
that there is destruction/tampering
of evidence by Investigating
agencies to shield the Chief
Minister by substituting and
deleting “CM” from 48 places and
replacing them with
“Umabharatiji”, “M/s”,
“Rajbhawan” and “Minister” in
excel sheet submitted in FIR 19-
20/2013.

(iii) Letter dated 25.02.2015,
requesting the SIT for convenient
time and place for a presentation
to be given by the whistleblower,
explaining the material and
genuineness of the evidence
provided by the Petitioner. The
Advocate General, Madhya
Pradesh termed it as “an attempt
to influence the SIT and create
avoidable confusion” appearing
for STF in Court monitoring
proceedings.
(iv) Complaint of Cognizable offence
dated 23.03.2015 to SIT with a
copy to Head of STF, after the
verification and substantiating
tampering of evidence by Truth
Labs, Bangalore for adding name
of additional accused in the
investigation of FIR-19-20/2013
and for adding offences under

Section 201 IPC read with
Section 120-B against Sh. Shivraj
Singh Chauhan, Chief Minister,
Madhya Pradesh and the
concerned officers of Indore
Police along with principal
offences. Truth Lab Bangalore
has a governing body comprising
of eminent personalities of the
nation and their credibility is
vouched for by the investigating
agencies and Superior Courts.
The expert from Truth lab is also
willing to assist the investigation if
called upon.
Further the information
letter/summon of STF was not as
per the procedure prescribed in
Cr.PC. The letter was not a
summon under Section 160 or
161 of CrPC after registration of a

crime and why no action has
been taken by SIT till this date on
the representations filed by the
Petitioner from time to time. The
SIT in presence of the counsels of
Petitioners candidly accepted that
they are incapacitated “to go into
the facts” and are helpless in the
matter.
16.04.2015 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in its
Monitoring jurisdiction in W.P.6385/2014 passed
an order and forwarded the documents provided
by the Counsel of the Whistleblower in W.P. (Crl)
No. 334/2014filed before Delhi High Court to SIT
VYAPAM cases Bhopal to submit a response in
context of the documents on or before
23.04.2015 and fixed next date of hearing on
24.04.2015.
22.04.2015 The SIT on basis of the demonstration given by
STF staff gave a prima facie opinion that the
material appears to be forged with the intention to

mislead the investigating agency in Crime No.
539/2013 registered at Rajendra Nagar Police
Station Indore. It is submitted that the SIT made
no effortto contact the Whistleblower or the Truth
lab, Bangalore regarding the material. No effort
was made to verify the contents of pen drive by
sending it to a central forensic laboratory at
Hyderabad or Chandigarh and a prima facie
opinion was given on basis of the demonstration
of STF staff. The STF technical team is ill
equipped to deal with the forensic nuances of
evidence and the prima facie opinion is based on
their demonstration.
23.04.2015 The STF takes statement of the Petitioner in
Bhopal in relation to representations dated
06.12.2014, 15.02.2015, 25.02.2015 and
23.03.2015 filed by Petitioner before SIT
VYAPAM cases.
23.04.2015 The STF on the same day after recording the
statement of Petitioner herein issued summon to
the whistleblower in light of the statement of

Petitioner given to STF. The STF wanted to
justify its investigation in the Complaint of
tampering of evidence/Excel Sheet which was
filed as evidence with the Charge sheet in Crime
No. 19/2013 and 20/2013.
24.04.2015 The High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in its
monitoring jurisdiction in W.P.6385/2014 passed
an order accepting the prima facie opinion of SIT
on the demonstration given by STF staff that the
material supplied by the Whistleblower appears
to be forged in order to mislead the investigating
agencies. It is to be pointed out that the Hon’ble
High Court of M.P. did not question the basis of
the inquiry of the SIT, as the prima facie opinion
of SIT is based on no investigation, no analysis or
evaluation by a reputed Central Forensic lab,
neither the whistleblower nor anyone from Truth
lab was called or questioned regarding the
contents.
26.04.2015 The Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh held a
press conference at his residence, and made

remarks about the Petitioner that the Petitioner
had provided “forged and fabricated document” to
mislead the investigation. The same was widely
reported in all the leading newspapers of the
State of Madhya Pradesh.
The said action of SIT/STF and High Court of
Madhya Pradesh regarding the material sent by
the whistleblower, and non examination of the
same without experts and behind the back of the
Petitioner herein, the whistleblower and the Truth
labs is not in judicious spirit. The same has
tarnished the impeachable reputation of the
Petitioner herein of last 30 years.
The reporting in the media and statement of the
Chief Minister in press and on television has
allegedly turned the Petitioner into someone “who
had fabricated and forged evidence to mislead
the investigation”.
29.06.2015 The Petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble Court
under Article 32 read with Article 21 of the

Constitution of India as the reputation of the
Petitioner herein is at stake.
Hence the present Writ Petition

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
Digvijaya Singh,
S/o Late Shri Balbhadra Singh
Aged about 67 years
R/o 64, Lodhi Estate,
Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi – 110 01 ...Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Madhya Pradesh,
Through Home Secretary,
Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. ... RespondentNo. 1
2. SpecialInvestigation Team,
VYAPAM cases,Vallabh Bhawan
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. .... RespondentNo. 2

3. SpecialTask Force,
Through ADG,
Near 7th
Battalion, Jahagirabad,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. .... RespondentNo. 3
AND IN THE MATTER OF:-
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING, INTER ALIA,
ISSUANCE OF WRITS, ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPIATE
WIRT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2015 PASSED
BY THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
JABALPUR IN ITS MONITORING JURISDICTION IN W.P.
6385/2014 AND THE REPORT DATED 22.04.2015 OF THE
SPECIALINVESTIGATIONTEAM (VYAPAM CASES) GIVING
PRIMA FACIE OPINION THAT THE MATERIAL OF THE
WHISTLEBLOWER IS “FABRICATED AND FORGED TO
MISLEAD THE INVESTIGATION” AND PASS THE ORDER OF
INJUNCTION AGAINST THE NEWSPAPERS PUBLISHING
NEWS/ARTICLES AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN

REGARDING THE MATERIAL SUPPLIED BY THE
WHISTLEBLOWER.
To,
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANIONJUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The humble petition of the Petitioner above named:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. That the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India seeks the kind indulgence of this
Hon’ble Court for the issuance of an appropriate writ
order, direction, in the form of Certiorari for quashing
order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the High Court of M.P.
at Jabalpur in W.P. 6385/2014 along with report dated
22.04.2015 of Special Investigation Team VYAPAM
cases giving prima facie opinion that the material
provided by the Petitioner herein is “fabricated and forged
to mislead the investigation” and pass for sending the
incriminating material and truth laboratory report provided
by the Petitioner for examination, analysis and

authentication by a Central forensic laboratory and for
transfer of investigation of Crime No. 539/2013 lodged at
Police Station Rajendra Nagar, District Indore and other
VYAPAM scam cases for fair and impartial investigation
to CBI or any other central agency.
2. That the Petitioner is a law abiding citizen of India and is
a senior leader hailing from Madhya Pradesh and has
been the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh for 10 years.
Presently the Petitioner is Member of the upper house i.e.
Rajya Sabha and has been agitating against the
VYAPAM scam and the flawed investigation by STF
which is to protect the real perpetrators (high profile
persons of Madhya Pradesh) than to prosecute them.
3. That this Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner herein to
safeguard his “right to reputation” a fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
which has been tarnished by the report dated 22.04.2015
of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and order dated
24.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Jabalpur in its Monitoring jurisdiction (W.P. 6385/2014)
of VYAPAM cases. The petitioner is canvassing the

instant grievance on account of loss of reputation, which
the Petitioner had earned over a course of 40 years in
service of nation and specially the State of Madhya
Pradesh. Today the allegation against the Petitioner is
that he had “forged and fabricated documents to mislead
the investigation” in VYAPAM scam cases.
4. The Respondent No.1 is the State of M.P. through Home
Secretary. State of M.P. is a necessary party in the
present Petition since the entire Vyapam scam unearthed
in the said state and the investigation is also being carried
out by the STF, which comes under the Home
Department of the State of M.P..
5. The Respondent No. 2 is the Special Investigation Team
set up by the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur for
supervising the investigation of the infamous vyapam
scam being done by the STF. It was the SIT who in its
wisdom chose not to give an appropriate opportunity to
the Petitioner or the whistleblower to explain to them as to
how the entire excel sheet was tampered in order to
benefita few individuals in the state of MP. Therefore, the

stand of the SIT would be important in deciding the
present case.
6. The Respondent No.3 is the Special Task Force. It was
on the basis of the presentation of the STF that the
Special Investigation Team (SIT) made a statement
before the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur to the
effectthat the material provided by the Petitioner herein to
the SIT was forged and fabricated. In view of the above, it
would be imperative to the have the stand of the STF on
record in so far as the manner in which they arrived at the
said conclusion, in order to dispose of the present
Petition.
7. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
a. WHETHER the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur was
correct to give a finding on fact in a monitoring jurisdiction
vide order dated 24.04.2015 on a report of SIT dated
22.04.2015 which was based on a demonstration of staff
of investigating agency, ill trained and ill equipped to
appreciate the nuances of forensic examination?

b. WHETHER the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur was
correct in passing the order dated 24.04.2015 without
hearing any of the parties involved i.e. the Petitioner
herein, the whistleblower or the representative from Truth
labs Bangalore?
c. WHETHER the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur was
correct in forwarding the incriminating computer/forensic
material to SIT instead of a Central forensic laboratory to
check the veracity of the material?
d. WHETHER an order can be passed by any judicial forum
on finding of fact against anyone without hearing them
thereby violating the principles of natural justice?
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
8. That the brief facts giving rise to the instant Writ Petition
are as follows:-
a. It is humbly submitted that, the Madhya Pradesh
Vyavasaik Pariksha Mandal (hereinafter shall be
referred as ‘VYAPAM’) was formed and entrusted with

duty to conduct Professional Examinations in 1970.
Subsequently in 2007 VYAPAM was also entrusted
with a duty to conduct various examinations for
appointment/recruitments in Government departments
this included departments like Transport, Education,
Dairy, Wight and Measures Etc.
b. Thus VYAPAM became a single window for entrance
in Professional Courses as well as getting
appointments in various Government Services.
c. On 07.07.2013, An F.I.R being F.I.R no. 539 of 2013
was lodged in P.S Rajendra Nagar, Indore, Madhya
Pradesh against unknown persons under Section
419,420, 467, 468 I.P.C. on complaint that certain
students with false identity cards are staying at a hotel
to appear on behalf of other candidates in PMT
examination.
d. That on 18.07.2013 as per the charge sheet filed in
Crime No. 19-20/2013 relating to recruitment of
Samvida Shiksha Varg-II/III, the Indore police seized
the office computer of Nitin Mohindra (Principal Analyst

VYAPAM; Accused) from Bhopal VYAPAM office at
04.30 pm on 18th
July 2013.
e. As per my information, the services of computer
experts were requisitioned by the Indore Police as well
as by the STF to assist investigation. A renowned
computer expert who has been assisting various
Government departments in data recovery was
summoned and asked to recover the data which was
allegedly deleted by the writer, i.e., Mr. Nitin Mohindra
before the seizure of its hard disk on 18.07.2013. The
said computer expert succeeded in recovery of the
original data and saved a copy of the same through the
help of the software installed in the Computer.
However, the copies of the Excel Sheet filed by the
STF before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in FIR
No. 19-20/2013 contain material alterations, deletions
and substitutions, that tantamount to tampering with
evidence which is required to be produced before the
Court of law.
f. As per the original deleted excel sheet retrieved by
Indore police with help of Computer Expert on

18.07.2013, “CM” featured at 48 places as a
recommendor/sponsorer for candidates appearing for
Samvida Shiksha Varg-II/III and AG-III. The said
specific entries were either replaced with others like
“Umabharatiji”, “Minister”, “Rajbhawan” and “M/s” or
altogether deleted. This information is authenticated
and certified by Truth labs, Bangalore, a private
reputed forensic lab in a detailed report. The aforesaid
tampering of evidence was done by Indore police,
direct beneficiary being the Chief Minister of State, Mr.
Shivraj Singh Chauhan.
g. That on 22.07.2013 as per the charge sheet filed in
Crime No. 19-20/2013 relating to recruitment of
Samvida Shiksha Varg-II/III, the Indore police sent the
hard disk of Nitin Mohindra’s computer to DFS
Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
h. That on 26.08.2013, Special Task Force (STF) by
notification was entrusted with the investigation of all
cases relating to VYAPAM scam. A number of FIR’s
were lodged by STF in cases relating to illegal
admissions/ recruitment totalling 55 cases, 45 relating

to admissionin professional courses and 10 relating to
recruitment in government services on
recommendation of high profile persons.
i. That on 16.04.2014, a set of fourteen Writ Petitions
were filed before High Court of M.P., lead Petition
being W.P. 15186/2013 titled Awadhesh Prasad
Shukla vs State of Madhya Pradesh praying for
transfer of investigation of VYAPAM cases from STF to
CBI. The High Court of M.P. was pleased to dispose
off all the Writ Petitions with the direction:
Paragraph 77
“Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, as
of now, we are not inclined to accept the prayer
for transfer of investigation to other
investigation agency. At the same time, in large
public interest, and to instill confidence in the
investigation by the STF, we deem it
appropriate to monitor the investigation done
by STF periodically. That will meet the ends of
justice.”

Paragraph 79
“Since we are disposing of all the Writ Petitions
in terms of this judgment, we deem it
appropriate to treat the question regarding
Court monitoring of investigation by STF of all
the offences pertaining to examinations
conducted by VYAPAM from time to tim e, as
suo motu proceedings, and direct the Registry
to number the said proceedings accordingly, to
be listed on the 25th
April, 2014, under Caption
“Director”, for passing appropriate orders.”
j. That in July 2014 the Petitioner herein along with
others filed Writ Petition No. 11695/2014 before High
Court of M.P. praying for transfer of Investigation to
CBI in light of developments that had taken place after
the order dated 16.04.2014 on basis of the charge
sheet submitted by STF in various cases relating to
VYAPAM as the investigation conducted by STF prima
facie appeared to shield the principal perpetrators and
prosecute the students and their parents.

k. That on 05.11.2014,High Court of M.P. was pleased to
dispose of the Writ Petitions by entrusting the
supervision of STF to Special Investigation Team. The
Court monitoring of VYAPAM Cases was to continue.
Thus a second tier of supervision was introduced in
Court monitoring proceedings by High Court of M.P.
l. That the Petitioner alongwith others preferred various
SLP’s against the order dated 05.11.2014 passed by
Hon’ble High Court of M.P. being S.L.P C.C No. 16456
of 2014, S.L.P C.C No. 17700 of 2014, S.L.P C.C No.
17908 of 2014, S.L.P C.C No. 31563 of 2014 were
filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Hon’ble
Court vide it’s Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2014
dismissed the above mentioned S.L.P’s on the
statement made by the Attorney General of India on
behalf of State of Madhya Pradesh. It is pertinent to
note that this Hon’ble Court enlarged the jurisdiction of
SIT constituted by High Court of M.P. to supervise all
the cases of STF investigation in VYAPAM scam.

m. That on 06.12.2014, the Petitioner in a representation
to the Special Investigation Team, pointed out
discrepancies in the investigation conducted by STF
overlooking aspects of “larger conspiracy”, no
investigation in recruitment of Patwaris etc in cases
involving high profile persons. Unfortunately to this
date no action has been taken by STF (Special task
Force) in this regard. A copy of the representation
dated 06.12.2014 by the Petitioner is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-1 (Pgs ___ to
___).
n. That in the meanwhile in December 2014-January
2015 an External Whistle blower contacted the
Petitioner herein fearing for his life and limb as the
Whistle blower possessed incriminating and damaging
information while working in capacity of a technical
consultant with investigating agencies of Madhya
Pradesh (Indore Police and STF). The damaging
information contained tampering of evidence by
investigating agencies to shield the Chief Minister and
other high profile persons of Madhya Pradesh in
VYAPAM scam cases relating to recruitment

examination of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II, III and AG-III.
The whistleblower provided the hard copies of the
material (with material /mirror image of same)
demonstrating tampering undertaken by investigating
agencies of Madhya Pradesh to shield the Chief
Minister and other Ministers of the Madhya Pradesh
Government.
o. That on 16.02.2015, the Petitioner herein on affidavit
submitted a representationbefore the S.I.T.(consisting
of Hon’ble Chairman – Shri Chandresh Bhushan,
Retired Judge Madhya Pradesh High Court, Shri Vijay
Raman Retired I.P.S (Member Police) and Shri Reddy
(Member Technical) constituted on the directions of
this Hon’ble Court. The Petitioner herein stated on
basis of the incriminating material provided by the
External whistleblower that the Petitioner has original
excel sheets/ materials in which “C.M.” was mentioned
at 48 places as a middlemen/ recommender of the
candidates which was substituted with “Uma Bharti Ji”,
“Raj Bhavan”, “M./s”, “Minister”. and at other places all
together deleted in excel sheet retrieved from the
deleted data of Mr. Nitin Mohindra (Principal System

Analyst; VYAPAM) regarding Crime No.19-20/2013
relating to recruitment of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II and
III . The investigating agencies of Madhya Pradesh
have tampered with the electronic evidences and
submitted false and fabricated excel sheets in the
charge sheets filed before competent court of law. A
copy of the Representation along with Affidavit of the
Petitioner dated 16.02.2015 sent by the Petitioner to
the SIT is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE P-2. (Pgs ___to ___).
p. That the external whistle blower (digital forensic
engineer/ computer expert) who had worked for S.T.F
Bhopal and other investigating agencies during the
course of investigation of VYAPAM cases filed a Writ
Petition (Crl)No. 334/2015 under Article 226 r/w Article
21 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of
Delhi with following prayers:
(i) Be pleased to Direct Respondent no. 1 (State of
NCT) to provide police protection to the Petitioner as
the life and limb of the Petitioner is under threat from

highly influential persons in Madhya Pradesh and
Police authorities of Madhya Pradesh.
(ii) Pass an order restraining the Respondent No. 2 to
4 (Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh Police and STF)
i.e. authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh from
illegally arresting/forcibly taking the Petitioner away
from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
q. The whistle blower claimed in the petition that he has
incriminating and damaging information regarding the
involvement of Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh and
his family members in VYAPAM cases. The
whistleblower also made a prayer before the High
Court of Delhi to submit the original excel sheets/
material (electronic evidence in form of soft copy) in
the safe custody of Delhi High Court. The High Court
of Delhi vide order dated 20.02.2015 passed in Writ
Petition (Crl) No. 334 of 2015 was pleased to grant him
police protection as an interim relief and directed the
police authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh not
to remove the whistle blower from within the territorial
jurisdiction of Delhi High Court except in accordance

with procedure established by law and without
intimating the Petitioner and his counsel on record in
this behalf. A copy of the WP (Crl) No. 334/2015 dated
19.2.2015filed before the Delhi High Court is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE P-3. (Pgs ___ to ___)
A copy of the Order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the
Delhi High Court in W.P. (Crl) No. 334/2015 is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-4.
(Pgs ___ to ___)
r. That on 23.02.2015, the Petitioner wrote to SIT on
basis of the material provided by the Whistle blower, in
which the Petitioner had submitted cell numbers of
prime accused of VYAPAM scam cases along with
IMEI numbers and landline/cell numbers of Chief
Minister, Chief Minister’s wife and other persons from
Chief Minister’s office. The call detail records and
SMS’s sent between these numbers would have
corroborated that CM’s office, CM and CM’s wife were
in direct touch for facilitating illegal
admissions/recruitment through VYAPAM. But
surprisingly the SIT did not forward it to STF for

investigation nor placed it before Monitoring Court. A
copy of the Representation of the Petitioner to the SIT
dated 23.02.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE P-5. (Pgs ___ to ___)
s. The Petitioner wrote a letter on 25.02.2015 to SIT
Bhopal VYAPAM cases along with the order of Delhi
High Court passed in W.P. 334/2105 filed by the
Whistleblower, requesting for convenient time and
place for presentation by the External Whistleblower
for explaining the material which incriminate the Chief
Minister of Madhya Pradesh and Chief Minister’s family
as the Whistleblower was under threat of life and limb
in Madhya Pradesh. A copy of the Representation
dated 25.02.2015 of the Petitioner is annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE P-6. (Pgs ___ to ___)
t. That on 04.03.2015 the High Court of M.P. at
Jabalpur in W.P. No. 6385/2014 (monitoring
jurisdiction) was pleased to pass an order on the
grievance made by Advocate General in context of the
documents submitted by Petitioner herein before SIT,
as an attempt to influence the SIT. The said order was

passed in absence of the Petitioner without any notice.
Further the Advocate General submitted that what is
more intriguing is that the SIT was ready to oblige the
request made in the representations including by
undertaking visit to Delhi. That SIT is overstepping its
authority under judgment dated 05.11.2014. The High
Court of M.P. at Jabalpur held that SIT could not
“on its own” unearth the information made available to
it, if it was in respect of investigation of the crimes
under monitoring. The High Court further called for a
report in sealed cover by Chairman SIT about the
circumstances in which he accepted the request to go
to Delhi on 04.03.2015 and the purpose of visit so
made. A copyof the Order date 04.03.2015 in WP No.
6385 of 2014 passed by the High Court of M.P. at
Jabalpur is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE P-7 (Pgs ___ to ___).
u. That on 13.03.2015, the whistleblower before
submitting the incriminating material in a pen drive to
the Delhi High Court in W.P. Crl. No. 334/2015, sends
the material to truth labs Bangalore for analysis and
veracity of the material. Truth Lab Bangalore is a

private forensic lab, credible and reputed, the advisory
board of Truth lab consists of legal luminaries and
others like :
(i) Justice M.N. Venkatachalliah.
(ii) Justice M.Jagannadha Rao.
(iii) Justice V.S. Malimath.
(iv) Mrs Ranjana Kumar, Former Vigilance Commissioner.
(v) Dr. Palle Ram Rao, Former Secretary, GOI.
(vi) Mr. C.S. Rao, Former Chairman IRDA
(vii) Mr. C. Anjaneya Reddy, Retd IPS, Former DG
Vigilance
(viii) Mr. MVS Prasad, Retd IAS, Former Special Chief
Secretary, A.P.
(ix) Mr. Kamal Kumar Retd IPS, Former Director NPA.
(x) Mr. P.S.V. Prasad Retd IPS, Former Director NPA.
(xi) Mr. Vepa Kamesam, Former DG, RBI
(xii) Dr. Lalji Singh VC BHU & Former Director CCMB
(xiii) Mr. Potturi Venkateshwara Rao, Former Chairman ,
AP Press Academy
(xiv) Prof. T.V. Rao Em.Prof IIM Ahmedabad

(xv) Mr. Pradeep Mittal, Founder Magna Infootech,
Hyderabad
v. That on 18.03.2015, the External Whistleblower
submitted the report of Truth Labs Bangalore alongwith
pendrive in W.P. (Crl) No. 334/2015 in the Custody of
the High Court of Delhi. A copy of the report of Truth
Lab, Bangalore dated 18.3.2015 is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure P-8. (Pages_____to_____)
w. That on 23.03.2015, the Petitioner sent a Complaint to
SIT (VYAPAM) cases for registering offences and
arraying the Chief Minister and the officials of Madhya
Pradesh Police as an accused in Crime No. 19-
20/2013 relating to recruitment Examination of
Samvida Shiksha Varg-II and III in light of judgment of
this Hon’ble Court in Lalita Kumari vs State of U.P. &
Ors alongwith the certified copy of Truth lab report and
copy of the pen drive containing incriminating material.
A clear cut case of tampering of evidence by
investigating agencies was made out to save the Chief
Minister of the State. A copy of the Complaint of the

Petitioner to the SIT dated 23.03.2015 is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-9. (Pgs ___ to
___).
x. That on 26.03.2015, the Writ Petition No. 334/2015
filed by the External whistleblower before Delhi High
Court was disposed of on the submissions made by
the Counsels with following considerations:
(i) Counsel for STF at the outset by placing reliance on
the Counter affidavit submits that they do not wish to
interrogate the Petitioner in the matter.
(ii) Counsel for the Petitioner in light of the statement
made at bar by the counsel appearing on behalf of
STF states that subjectto the Petitioner being provided
protection by the Police in Delhi there is no need to
proceed further with the subject petition.
(iii) A copy of the purported material available with the
Petitioner shall be transmitted in a sealed cover to the
Registrar General of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur within a fortnight.

(iv) The parties shall be bound by the respective
undertakings made by their Counsel in Court today.
A copy of the Order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the
Delhi High Court in W.P. (Crl) No. 334 of 2015 is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-10.
(Pages_____to_____)
y. That on 04.04.2015, the Petitioner herein sent a
reminder letter to SIT Vyapam cases in reference of
letter dated 23.03.2015providing information regarding
cognizable offences conducted by Indore police to
shield the Chief Minster Madhya Pradesh. That the
SIT/STF has not taken any action till date on the
information provided by the Petitioner herein in teeth of
Lalita Kumari vs State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1. A copy
of the Reminder letter sent by the Petitioner dated
04.04.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-11. (Pages_____to_____)
z. That on 08.04.2015, The STF issued an information
letter/summon to Petitioner on the representation

submitted to SIT by the Petitioner dated 06.12.2014,
15.02.2015, 25.02.2015 and 23.03.2015 for a
statement.
aa. That on 09.04.2015, a copy of the pendrive along with
the certified copy of the report of truth lab was
forwarded by the Counsel of the whistleblower in W.P.
(Crl) No. 334/2015 under directions of the High Court
of Delhi to Registrar General Madhya Pradesh High
Court.
bb. That on 15.04.2015, the Petitioner appeared before
SIT VYAPAM cases in Bhopal regarding the letter
dated 08.04.2015 sent by STF. The Petitioner also
pointed out various representations and Complaints
sent by the Petitioner on which no action was taken by
either the SIT or the STF:
(i) Representationto SIT dated 06.12.2014: the Petitioner
pointed out discrepancies in the investigation
conducted by STF overlooking aspects of “larger
conspiracy”, no investigation in recruitment of Patwaris
etc in cases involving high profile persons.

(ii) Representation dated 16.02.2015 with affidavit of the
Petitioner and a copy of the “original Excel sheet”,
Petitioner informed SIT that there is
destruction/tampering of evidence by Investigating
agencies to shield the Chief Minister by substituting
and deleting “CM” from 48 places and replacing them
with “Umabharatiji”, “M/s”, “Rajbhawan” and “Minister”
in excel sheet submitted in FIR 19-20/2013.
(iii) Letter dated 25.02.2015, requesting the SIT for
convenient time and place for a presentation to be
given by the whistleblower, explaining the material and
genuineness of the evidence provided by the
Petitioner. The Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh
termed it as “an attempt to influence the SIT and
create avoidable confusion” appearing for STF in Court
monitoring proceedings.
(iv) Complaint of Cognizable offence dated 23.03.2015 to
SIT with a copy to Head of STF, after the verification
and substantiating tampering of evidence by Truth
Labs, Bangalore for adding name of additional
accused in the investigation of FIR-19-20/2013 and for

adding offences under Section 201 IPC read with
Section 120-B against Sh. Shivraj Singh Chauhan,
Chief Minister, Madhya Pradesh and the concerned
officers of Indore Police along with principal offences.
Truth Lab Bangalore has a governing body comprising
of eminent personalities of the nation and their
credibility is vouched for by the investigating agencies
and Superior Courts. The expert from Truth lab is also
willing to assist the investigation if called upon.
Further the information letter/summon of STF was not
as per the procedure prescribed in CrPC. The letter
was not a summon under Section 160 or 161 of CrPC
after registration of a crime and why no action has
been taken by SIT till this date on the representations
filed by the Petitioner from time to time. The SIT in
presence of the counsels of Petitioners candidly
accepted that they are incapacitated “to go into the
facts” and are helpless in the matter.
cc. That on 16.04.2015, the High Court of M.P. at
Jabalpur in its Monitoring jurisdiction in W.P.
6385/2014 passed an order and forwarded the

documents provided by the Counsel of the
Whistleblower in W.P. (Crl) No. 334/2014 filed before
Delhi High Court to SIT VYAPAM cases Bhopal to
submit a response in context of the documents on or
before 23.04.2015 and fixed next date of hearing on
24.04.2015. A copy of Order dated 16.04.2015 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P.
6385/2014 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-12. (Pgs ___ to ___)
dd. That on 22.04.2015, the SIT on basis of the
demonstration given by STF staff gave a prima facie
opinion that the material appears to be forged with the
intention to mislead the investigating agency in Crime
No. 539/2013 registered at Rajendra Nagar Police
Station Indore. It is submitted that the SIT made no
effort to contact the Whistleblower or the Truth lab,
Bangalore regarding the material. No effort was made
to verify the contents of pen drive by sending it to a
central forensic laboratory at Hyderabad or Chandigarh
and a prima facie opinion was given on basis of the
demonstration of STF staff. The STF technical team is
ill equipped to deal with the forensic nuances of

evidence and the prima facie opinion is based on their
demonstration.
ee. That on 23.04.2015 The STF takes statement of the
Petitioner in Bhopal in relation to representations dated
06.12.2014, 15.02.2015, 25.02.2015 and 23.03.2015
filed by Petitioner before SIT VYAPAM cases.
ff. That on 23.04.2015, the STF on the same day after
taking statement of Petitioner herein issues summon to
the whistleblower in light of the statement of Petitioner
given to STF. The STF wanted to justify its
investigation in the Complaint of tampering of
evidence/ExcelSheet which was filed as evidence with
the Charge sheet in Crime No. 19/2013 and 20/2013.
gg. That on 24.04.2015, the High Court of M.P. at
Jabalpur in its monitoring jurisdiction in W.P.
6385/2014 passed an order accepting the prima facie
opinion of SIT on the demonstrationgiven by STF staff
that the material supplied by the Whistleblower
appears to be forged in order to mislead the

investigating agencies. It is to be pointed out that the
High Court of M.P. did not question the basis of the
inquiry of the SIT, as the prima facie opinion of SIT is
based on no investigation, no analysis or evaluation by
a reputed Central Forensic lab, neither the
whistleblower nor anyone from Truth lab was called or
questioned regarding the contents. A copy of the Order
dated 24.04.2015 of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. 6385/2014 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-13. (pgs ___ to
___)
hh. That on 26.04.2015, the Chief Minister of Madhya
Pradesh held a press conference at his residence, and
made remarks about the Petitioner that the Petitioner
had provided “forged and fabricated document” to
mislead the investigation. The same was widely
reported in all the newspapers of Madhya Pradesh.
ii. That, the Petitioner submitted a letter dated
27.04.2015 apropos to the report of SIT to the High
Court of M.P. at Jabalpur qua prima facie opinion
that the contents of pen drive submitted by the

Whistleblower appears to be the forged with an intent
to mislead investigation the petitioner herein submitted
a detailed letter expressing/ highlighting discrepancies
which were overlooked by the SIT. A copy of the
Letter dated 27.04.2015 of the Petitioner is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-14. (Pgs ___ to
___)
9. That the present Petitioner has not filed any other Petition
in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India or in any
other court on the subject matter of the instant Petition
and if the reliefs as prayed for him are granted, the
petitioner’s redressal will be complete, effectual and will
meet the ends of the justice. The source of knowledge of
the facts as alleged in the present writ petition are self-
enquiry, records of Court proceedings, reports and
newspaper articles.
GROUNDS
A. FOR THAT the authenticity of the material
provided by the whistleblower could have been
examined and evaluated only by a specialised
Central forensic laboratory as the STF staff is not
trained and ill equipped to give an opinion on the

forensic nuances of electronic evidence and on
the veracity of the material.
B. FOR THAT the SIT and High Court did not call
upon either the whistleblower or the
representative of truth lab Bangalore to ascertain
the authenticity of the material or the examination
conducted by truth labs to come to the conclusion
that the material/excel sheet which is part of the
charge sheet filed in Crime No. 19/2013 and
Crime No. 20/2013 is a tampered one.
C. FOR THAT the Petitioner was not called upon by the
SIT after the Petitioner had submitted the certified report
of truth lab and pen drive of the whistleblower vide
Complaint dated 23.03.2015. No action was taken by the
SIT on any of the representations submitted by the
Petitioner.
D. FOR THAT the report dated 22.04.2015 and order
dated 24.04.2015 passed by the High Court of
M.P. at Jabalpur was prepared and passed
respectively in absence of the Petitioner herein.

E. FOR THAT the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in
its Monitoring jurisdiction has given prima facie
finding of fact regarding the authenticity of the
material submitted by the whistleblower without
any application of mind and on basis of a report
submitted by SIT.
F. FOR THAT the order of the High Court of M.P. at
Jabalpur in its monitoring jurisdiction on finding of
fact will subvert any investigation which the
investigation agency might have undertaken
regarding tampering of evidence by Indore police
and beneficiary being the Chief Minister.
G. FOR THAT just after the order passed by the High
Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in its monitoring
jurisdiction regarding finding of fact, the Chief
Minister held a press conference, at his
residence, which was reported in various
newspapers. The Chief Minister rejoicing and
elated that a clean chit has been given by High
Court and the Petitioner has fabricated and
forged documents to mislead investigation.

H. FOR THAT the actions of SIT, High Court of M.P.
and the press conference of the Chief Minister
has caused loss of reputation to the Petitioner
which is a fundamental right under the
constitution of India. At present the Petitioner who
has held high public offices and had been in
service of people of Madhya Pradesh is being
projected as someone who has “forged and
fabricated evidence”.
I. FOR THAT the prima facie opinion of SIT is based
on the demonstration given by STF (technical
staff), which is not a forensic laboratory.
J. FOR THAT instead of submitting the material
provided by the whistleblower to a reputed central
laboratory for examination and opinion the SIT
and the STF itself adorned the mantle of a
forensic laboratory and gave a prima facie opinion
that the material is forged and fabricated.

K. FOR THAT the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur
instead of taking a stern view on the report of SIT
which stems from a demonstration of incompetent
STF staff accepted the prima facie opinion of the
SIT.
L. FOR THAT the newspapers are flooded with the
statements of Chief Minister that the Petitioner
herein had submitted a forged excel sheet to
mislead investigation.
P R A Y E R
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction, in the form or
of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing
order dated 24.04.2015passed by the High Court of M.P.
at Jabalpur in W.P. 6385/2014 and report dated
to mislead the investigation”;

b) Issue or pass any writ, direction or order in the nature of
Mandamus for sending the incriminating material and
truth laboratory report provided by the Petitioner for
examination, analysis and authentication by a Central
forensic laboratory;
c) Issue or pass any writ, direction or order in the nature of
Mandamus for transferring investigation of Crime No.
539/2013 lodged at Police Station Rajendra nagar,
District Indore and other VYAPAM scam cases for fair
and impartial investigation to CBI or any other central
agency;
d) Issue or pass any writ, direction or order that this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN
DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY
RAKHI RAY
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
DRAWNBY:
DRAWNON:
FILED ON:
NEW DELHI

I.A. NO. OF 2015
IN
IN THE MATTER OF:-
SH. DIGVIJAYA SINGH ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION FOR AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE DIRECTIONS
To,
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANIONJUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The humble petition of the Petitioner above named-
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-
1. That, the Petitioner is a Member of Parliament from
Rajya Sabha and had been Chief Minister of State of
Madhya Pradesh for 10 years. The Petitioner is a public

figure and had been serving the State of Madhya
Pradesh for last 40 years. As a man of impeccable
integrity the Petitioner is being subjected to humiliation
as allegedly being an accomplice to someone who had
“fabricated and forged evidence” in VYAPAM cases to
mislead the investigation. The Petitioner is a law abiding
citizen of India.
2. That the instant application is being filed seeking interim
orders in respect of issue the authenticity of the material
provided by the whistleblower could have beenexamined
and evaluated only by a specialised Central forensic
laboratory as the STF staff is not trained and ill equipped
to give an opinion on the forensic nuances of electronic
evidence and on the veracity of the material.
3. That SIT and High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur did not
call upon either the whistleblower or the representative of
truth lab Bangalore to ascertain the authenticity of the
material or the examination conducted by truth labs to
come to the conclusion that the material/excel sheet
which is part of the charge sheet filed in Crime No.
19/2013 and Crime No. 20/2013 is a tampered one.

4. That, the Petitioner was not called upon by the SIT after
the Petitioner had submitted the certified report of truth
lab and pen drive of the whistleblower vide Complaint
dated 23.03.2015. No action was taken by the SIT on
any of the representations submitted by the Petitioner.
5. That the report dated 22.04.2015 and order dated
24.04.2015 passed by the High Court of M.P. at
Jabalpur was prepared and passed respectively in
absence of the Petitioner herein.
6. That, the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in its
Monitoring jurisdiction has given prima facie finding of
fact regarding the authenticity of the material submitted
by the whistleblower without any application of mind and
on basis of a report submitted by SIT.
7. That the order of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur
in its monitoring jurisdiction on finding of fact will subvert
any investigation which the investigation agency might
have undertaken regarding tampering of evidence by
Indore police and beneficiary being the Chief Minister.

8. That just after the order passed by High Court of M.P.
at Jabalpur in its monitoring jurisdiction regarding
finding of fact, the Chief Minister held a press
conference, at his residence, which was reported in
various newspapers. The Chief Minister rejoicing and
elated that a clean chit has been given by High Court
and the Petitioner has fabricated and forged documents
to mislead investigation.
9. That the actions of SIT, High Court of M.P. and the press
conference of the Chief Minister has caused loss of
reputation of the Petitioner which is a fundamental right
under the constitution of India. At present the Petitioner
who has held high public offices and had been in service
of people of Madhya Pradesh is being projected as
someone who has “forged and fabricated evidence”.
10. That the prima facie opinion of SIT is based on the
demonstration given by STF (technical staff), which is not
a forensic laboratory.
11. That the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has a good
prima facie case and hopes to succeed before this
Hon’ble Court.

12. That grave and irreparable prejudice is being caused to
the interest of the public at large with each passing day.
13. That the instant application is being made bona fide in
the interest of justice.
PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to:
(a) Stay order dated 24.04.2015 passed by High Court of
M.P. at Jabalpur in W.P. 6385/2014 and report dated
to mislead the investigation;
(b) Direct, the incriminating material and truth laboratory
report provided by the Petitioner shall be sent for
examination, analysis and authentication by a Central
forensic laboratory;

(c) Direct RespondentNo. 1 to transfer investigation of Crime
No. 539/2013 lodged at Police Station Rajendra nagar,
District Indore and other VYAPAM scam cases for fair
and impartial investigation to CBI or any other central
agency;
(d) Pass any other or further order or directions which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN
DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
RAKHI RAY
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
DRAWNBY:
DRAWNON:
FILED ON:
NEW DELHI

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
IN THE MATTER OF:-
SH. DIGVIJAYA SINGH ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
I.A. NO. OF 2015 APPLICATIONFOR AD-INTERIM
EX-PARTE DIRECTIONS
PAPERBOOK
[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: MRS. RAKHI RAY

VYAPAM Scam Madhya Pradesh

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to VYAPAM Scam Madhya Pradesh

Similar to VYAPAM Scam Madhya Pradesh (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

VYAPAM Scam Madhya Pradesh